The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 22 Sep 2019, 05:49

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2017, 11:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 17:19
Posts: 7572
Joker wrote:
The castle on your photo has an eagle inside and not springbok, which dates it as post 1994.

Correct, the Mirage IIIBZs were withdrawn in 1990.

Image by JP van Vuuren
Image

_________________
How come every time my ship comes in, I'm at the airport?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 10:52 
Offline

Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 10:34
Posts: 75
Location: Melbourne Australlia
Thanks for all your comments Gents :smt023

One thing sure about SAAF Mirage and Cheetahs, getting quite confusing between the different camos, technical updates, "weird" protos with Russian engines...a plethora of antennas and sensors of any shape...can be pretty tricky ! but sure not boring at all and above all, some "kick ass" great looking aircrafts...!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 13:36 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2120
Mirage 817 served 2 Sqn up until 1990 and was transferred to TFDC for two years, she was airworthy until 1995. This is were she was given the non standard camo scheme with eagle castles. In Herman Potgieter's book there is a phto of 817 in the standard scheme no sqn markings and eagle castles, so the non standard scheme must have been applied when 817 was back at Waterkloof?

The camo pattern on the drop tanks was unique only to 817.

Full story here....photo's unavailable thanks to Photobucket.

http://www.saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2767


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 13:42 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2120
Mistral wrote:
So three green/buff/grey schemes- cool :smt023

Be careful to check references as there were two types of buff/green camo - the CZ was finished in either the early hard edged glossy finish or the later feathered edge matt finish. The EZ in hard edged glossy finish. The BZ, R2Z and DZ/D2Z in hard edged glossy camo as well. RZs were delivered in NATO green/grey camo but later painted in soft edge, matt buff/green camo. Also remember that the underside colour for buff/green aircraft was actually a light blue and not light grey.

With respect to tanks (I've put in brackets the Mirage III type where I've seen images of a specific tank combo) :

Two wing mounted RP62 (1,300 liter) subsonic tanks with horizontal fins and endplates - could be natural metal or grey (grey on glow vis RZ aircraft). (Mirage IIICZ/EZ/RZ).
Two wing mounted RP18R (500 liter) supersonic tanks. These tanks had no tail fins. Natural metal, except on aircraft carrying commemorative schemes (Mirage IIICZ #800). (Mirage IIICZ/BZ/DZ/EZ/RZ)
Two wing mounted RP18R (500 liter) supersonic tanks and one centreline RP825 tank (825 liter) - seen pics of RZs in this configuration. The latter tank is longer and larger in diameter than the RP18R and has horizontal tail fins. Both natural metal. (Mirage IIIRZ).
Single centreline RP825 tank (825 liter) (Mirage IIICZ/EZ/RZ)
Two 110G supersonic wing tanks (volume ??) with 3 cruciform tail fins. These are typical of what was seen later on the Cheetahs and Kfirs. Natural metal. (Mirage IIICZ).
Two wing mounted 110G supersonic tanks and one centreline RP825 tank (825 liter). Natural metal. (Mirage IIICZ / RZ).
Also supersonic wing tanks with two bomb shackles in tandem (Mirage IIIC) - not sure of designation. May well be a version of the 110G as they have three tail fins.
Two wing mounted JL100 combined fuel tank (250 liter) / 68mm rocket launcher pods. Natural metal. (Mirage IIICZ/EZ/BZ/DZ).
Two wing mounted RP62 (1,300 liter) tanks and a centreline RP825 (Mirage IIIRZ and R2Z).
Two wing mounted 1,700 liter tanks (Mirage IIIR2Z).

Remember that many of the tanks (RP62, RP18R, RP825 and 110G) were sprayed in an orange protective coating which would flake off making for an interesting finish on a model. Please note that the above is certainly not definitive and is based on actual configurations I've seen in various images found on books and on the net.


Good post,

note that the Mirage III RZ could also carry the 1700 lt tanks. In this photo 836 also has the tanks fitted.

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 14:28 
Offline

Joined: 18 May 2012, 07:12
Posts: 121
Hi Mars,

In SAAF service the only RZ to carry 1700 l tanks was 836 but these tanks were only carried by 836 after it received the 09k-50 engine. You can see the shortened intake after the engine conversion.

Joker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2017, 16:05 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2120
Thanks Joker!

Was it a weight limitation issue then?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2017, 09:32 
Offline

Joined: 18 May 2012, 07:12
Posts: 121
Hi Mars

MARS wrote:
Was it a weight limitation issue then?


The D's and E's were used mainly for training, so the need for a 1700l tanks was nor really there. On the R the typical temp and altitude coupled with the shorter runways in the bush probably did not allow these tanks to be used. One D2 and later a Cheetah D was fitted with these tanks for evaluation but it was not adopted for general use. The attachment point for these tanks were different, which would also lead to a commonality issue.

Joker


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 04 Nov 2017, 14:02 
Offline

Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 10:34
Posts: 75
Location: Melbourne Australlia
As I said before, nothing seems to be straight forward :lol:
Thanks for all you comments guys !


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Jun 2019, 18:44 
Offline

Joined: 31 Aug 2010, 15:01
Posts: 4447
Location: Centurion, Pretoria, SA
Time to revive an old topic. Does anyone know the Dassault designation for the Mirage III wing tanks which could carry two bombs in tandem. The more common one was the 4 bomb carrier fuel tank designated RPK-10 but the SAAF didn't use these.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 13:54 
Offline

Joined: 08 Jun 2019, 11:44
Posts: 1
Is there a good reason for SAAF not using those?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 15:54 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2120
The drop tanks in question may have come from Israel?

They are very similiar if not identical to the ones used on the Dagger, Kfir and Cheetah.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 21:50 
Offline

Joined: 31 Aug 2010, 15:01
Posts: 4447
Location: Centurion, Pretoria, SA
Mars wrote:
The drop tanks in question may have come from Israel?

They are very similiar if not identical to the ones used on the Dagger, Kfir and Cheetah.

Mirage IIICZ could carry five types of wing tanks :
1) Supersonic 500 liter
2) Subsonic 1,300 liter
3) JL-100 combined rocket/fuel tank
4) The longer supersonic wing ranks with the three fins
5) And the ones I made reference to - looks like the 500 liter one with tandem bomb shackles. They used these on the border.

These all predates the Cheetah program so I'm taking it that these were of French origin.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 11 Jun 2019, 23:26 
Offline

Joined: 20 Aug 2010, 14:40
Posts: 2120
Looking at it from the French side, is there reference to French or any other Air Force Mirages fitted with tanks 500 Lt with twin bomb shackles other than the SAAF?

Assuming that the SAAF started using the tanks from the 80's or even late 70's , how would the SAAF have procured them if the tanks were of French origin?

Perhaps the fact that the official designation is hard to find suggests that the tanks weren't of French Origion?

To me it looks like the tanks that the SAAF flew with were a copy of the RPK-100?
Perhaps also had a higher weight rating?

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 22:09 
Offline

Joined: 31 Aug 2010, 15:01
Posts: 4447
Location: Centurion, Pretoria, SA
There are pics of CZs at Ondangwa (early '80s) with the bomb / tank combo. I assume we got them from the French. What is not clear is whether they have the tail fins or not. I'll have to go with the fact that they did. These tanks were longer than the standard 500 lt supersonic wing tanks. Thanks for the piccies :smt023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 20:04 
Offline

Joined: 22 Oct 2005, 05:47
Posts: 311
Hi Mistral,

Mistral wrote:
There are pics of CZs at Ondangwa (early '80s) with the bomb / tank combo. I assume we got them from the French. What is not clear is whether they have the tail fins or not. I'll have to go with the fact that they did. These tanks were longer than the standard 500 lt supersonic wing tanks.


Would these not be the same tanks?

- SAAF Museum Swartkop Thread

Regards,
Stratobat

_________________
'If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group